Benazir Bhutto knew she was risking her life by returning to Pakistan. By directly confronting the extremist Islamic elements there, such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the madrassas, the radical imams, and radical elements within the Pakistani government, Bhutto knew she was venturing into the very heart of darkness of Islamic terrorism. She made no secret that it was the tyrranical terrorist element she was coming to fight against, by instituting democratic reforms, by removing military rule, by appealing to the vast majority of moderate Pakistanis. Bhutto had even condoned the use of NATO forces to eradicate Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions from the tribal regions in Waziristan, a move the Musharraf government had rejected. The Musharraf government turned against the terrorist element mainly because it's other option was to incur the post 9/11 wrath of the United States, most indelicately stated as being 'bombed back to the stone age'. Yet, even in turning against the radical Islamists, even though Musharraf did apprehend more terrorists than any country other than the USA, he seemed to be playing both sides of the fence, as he tried to juggle the opposing interests of the jihadists and the free world. Democratic reform was not coming under Musharraf, and the Pakistani people increasingly lost confidence in his government. The january elections in Pakistan, if fairly held, would have seen Benazir Bhutto return as prime minister, and led to a probable sharing of power between herself and Musharraf.

Hillary Clinton loves us, and she is going to take care of us. All us ignorant wretches out here in the sticks just have to be smart enough to make her the president. Thank goodness. Our problems are nearly over.

Newsweek magazine has turned over some space within it's covers to that renowned international diplomat, the voice of reason, Columbia university's favorite Jew-hating, armageddon seeking, executor of homosexuals and oppressor of women (but evidently a cool guy because he hates Bush too, same as Newsweek and Columbia do), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Let's give Newsweek and the little america hating fellow a nice hand (or at least one finger of a hand, that's all I could muster). Newsweek shows a nice picture of a smiling Ahmadinejad for a 'special guest commentary' (isn't that special ?) titled 'An Arrogant Approach, The Dangers of Unilateralism - For The United States And The World'. Naturally, it's a condemnation of american foreign policy. If I didn't know it was Ahmadinejad talking, I would have guessed that it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) who wrote the article. Those two sound so much alike, it's uncanny. Harry must have Mahmoud on speed dial or something, so he can get the latest Iranian talking points heard in the halls of Congress as quickly as possible.

The Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe have both endorsed John McCain in the Republican primaries. Both newspapers also endorsed McCain in the 2004 Republican primaries. John McCain is Republicano numero uno - among Democrats, that is. Why do Democrats pretend to bring the love for Mr. McCain (and believe me, they ARE pretending. Neither of those newspapers would ever endorse McCain in a general election against another Democrat) ? Hear it for yourself:

At the UN Climate conference in Bali, a global tax on carbon emissions was recommended by a panel of participants. Advocates said the tax would be “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.” (Translation: Bend over, United States Of America). Basically, the richer countries would be paying for the poorer countries to prepare for the catastrophic specter of global warming. It's CO2 socialism. Advocates of the tax say failure to adopt it will bring about the end of all life on earth as we know it, and some even worse stuff too. And that's their conservative estimate.

On tuesday, December 11th, 2007, The House of Representatives voted on House Resolution 847 (H.R. 847), which dealt with "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith". H.R. 847 was sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), and had 60 co-sponsors (58 Republicans and 2 Democrats).

The Clinton campaign brought up Barack Obama's high school drug use as a weapon against him. Obama has openly admitted to it and never attempted to hide it. Unlike Bill Clinton, who "didn't inhale", Obama did inhale and is honest about it. I respect Obama for telling the truth, even if it hurts him in this presidential race. There are no perfect people on this earth. As for respecting the Clintons...nah, don't think so.

I don't need to add much to this post, which was entered over at the DailyKos website. I found it while surfing Malkin's website. It speaks for itself. This is what ingesting the Kos-type propaganda does to people. Can you say M-O-O-N-B-A-T ? (Note that the poster "took the trouble to inform myself about politics A COUPLE YEARS AGO", no doubt by reading the Daily Kos-monauts). I don't know whether to pity this guy, laugh, or alert the authorities. He could be the next guy to shoot up a church. I apologize for the couple words of profanity, but I left them in to show the mindset of this person.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can a political party in america get away with the unthinkable proposition of withholding funding for american troops in the field, or in return for said funding, try to cut a deal to increase spending in other areas against the presidient's wishes, when the federal government is already running a deficit, owes a huge federal debt, and Congress appears to be fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax this year by not offsetting the lost tax revenue ? How can that same political party then have the gall to complain about the federal deficit, call themselves fiscally responsible, or utter the phrase 'we support the troops' ?

Liberal policies of coddling criminals are responsible for the murders of more americans in the last 50 years than the totals of all americans killed in all wars during the same time period. Liberal notions of blaming crime on society rather than on the perpetrators, of eschewing punishment for criminals, of fighting against the police instead of the criminals, all contributed to the unnecessary murders of hundreds of thousands of americans, the majority of whom were poor and/or black. Liberals went from their crowning achievement, the success of the civil rights movement, to the depths of their own depravity in near record time, as crime came to be seen as a sort of social protest, a reaction against "the man". 1960's riots in Watts and Detroit weren't even met with much of a response from the police. In the words of Ramsay Clark, uber-liberal attorney general with the Johnson administration, "punishment as an end in itself is itself a crime in our times...Rehabilitation must be the goal of modern corrections. Every other consideration should be subordinated to it". Or listen to James Vorenberg, a member of Johnson's' crime commission, "To a considerable degree, law enforcement cannot deal with criminal behavior". It is no coincidence whatsoever that with the mainstreaming of liberalism, the 1960's, the violent crime rate in the US increased 226%. The murder rate increased 122% from 1963 to 1980. The number of violent crimes jumped from 1 million in 1960 to 2.9 million in 1970, while the number of prison sentences handed out by the liberal courts went from 40,000 in 1960 to 37,000 in 1970. In inner cities all over the country, people were afraid to go out of their houses at night. Liberals were coddling the criminals, but they weren't doing a whole lot for the ever-increasing number of victims, who were overwhelmingly the very people liberals claimed they wanted to help, the poor and minorities. Those people were virtual prisoners in their own homes, as gangs and thugs ruled the streets of their neighborhoods.

The Senate, in an 88-5 vote, passed a one year temporary fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax, resulting in a $50 billion tax cut, since it was not offset by spending cuts or other tax increases, as the Democrat PAYGO rules were suspended. PAYGO, passed by the incoming 2006 Democratic congress, mandates that tax cuts or spending increases are paid for so as not to add more to the federal deficit. Under PAYGO, either $50 billion of spending cuts or $50 billion in other tax increases would have had to be made to offset the 'cost' of the AMT fix.

“We [Democrats] are the party of real national security. We are the party of real economic opportunity and a brighter future for our children.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in between attempts at losing the Iraq war. Right, Nancy...Bill Clinton did propose that explosive taggants thingy.

The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) says Iran stopped working on it's nuclear weapons program in 2003, which has Democrats in Congress grinning from ear to ear, and Republicans in Congress scratching their heads. The Democrats are grinning, not because no active Iranian nuclear program is good news (though it certainly is, if true), but because they believe it gives them some ammunition in the Democrat's war against the real enemy, George W. Bush and his merry band of neocons. Republicans are scratching their heads, because the 2007 version of the NIE is a direct contradiction to the 2005 version of the NIE, which indicated that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The 2007 version is also a contradiction to the 2002 NIE on Iran. From all I've read on this subject recently, it appears nobody in our media has noticed that if the Iranians STOPPED working on nuclear weapons in 2003, then they had to be working ON developing nukes up until that time, which gives the lie to the Iranian claim that they never intended to build nuclear weapons. Iran was lying to the world. The new NIE cites "international pressure" as the reason Iran stopped it's nuclear program in 2003. Let me see now, if what the NIE says is true, who was applying the most international pressure on Iran in 2003 and forward ?....Hmmm....Oh yeah, it was GEORGE W. BUSH and his merry band of neocons, who coincidentally happened to have america's military right next door in Iraq, and were telling Iran to stop it's nuclear weapons program or else. It was either THAT international pressure, or the UN having a meeting and issuing a statement that deterred Iran. You decide.